7.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Grozny, Chechnya.
8.  The applicant has a daughter and three grandsons. Her family lived at 9 Kiyevskiy Lane in the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny. Prior to the resumption of hostilities in Chechnya in 1999 the applicant was a lecturer in the Chechen and Russian languages and in teaching methods at the Chechen branch of the Business and Administration University of Ingushetia.
9.  In October 1999 hostilities resumed between Russian forces and Chechen armed groups. Grozny came under heavy aerial and artillery bombardment.
10.  The applicant remained in Grozny in the winter of 1999 to 2000. On 10 January 2000 her house at 9 Kiyevskiy Lane was destroyed during a rocket attack.
11.  After 10 January 2000 the applicant and her family lived in the cellar of a house at 23 Olympiyskiy Drive, together with several other residents of the area. On 22 January 2000 the residents were informed, via an amplifier installed in a helicopter, that the following day would be their last opportunity to leave the city through a humanitarian corridor. Leaflets containing similar information were dropped, notifying the residents that they could leave on 23 January 2000 at 9 a.m. by the road leading to the settlement of Staraya Sunzha, where they would be picked up by buses and taken out of the Grozny area.
12.  On 23 January 2000 at 9 a.m. the applicant and her family left the house at Olimpiyskiy Drive. They were joined by other residents who were heading towards Staraya Sunzha. The applicant recalled that there were about a hundred people in their group, including children. People were carrying only their most valuable possessions, in bags or on sledges. Many had white armbands, and a man walking close to the applicant was carrying a pole with a white sheet to show that they were civilians.
13.  At about 9.30 a.m. the front of the group, including the applicant, reached Zhukovskiy Street. Further down that street there stood the premises of a former canning factory, where a regiment of Russian military forces was temporarily stationed. While the applicant was crossing Zhukovskiy Street at the point where it intersects with Olimpiyskiy Drive, artillery fire and shelling started from the direction of the cannery. Later a helicopter appeared, from which a sniper fired towards the crossroads. As a result of the shelling a nine-storey building nearby was destroyed. The applicant submitted a drawing with a plan of the area where the attack occurred.
14.  The applicant received several shell and bullet wounds to her right arm, both legs, hips and left kneecap. She lost consciousness and remained in the street for about ten hours. Her relatives told her later that the shelling had continued and that they could not retrieve her or the other wounded until nightfall.
15.  In the evening of the same day the applicant was taken by her relatives to a basement. She could not be taken to a hospital because the shelling was still ongoing. Her relatives and neighbours transported her from one cellar to another, and it was not until 30 January 2000 that she reached the field hospital of the Ministry of Emergencies (Emercom), located in the settlement of Staraya Sunzha on the outskirts of Grozny, where she was for the first time examined by medical personnel.
16.  On the following day the applicant was taken further away, to a hospital in the town of Argun. However, that hospital had no electricity and it was impossible to perform an X-ray. On 31 January 2000 the applicant was taken by her sister to a hospital in Gudermes, where she finally received proper treatment. There she was diagnosed with the following injuries: perforating firearm wounds to the soft tissues of the right arm and right hip, a perforating firearm wound to the left kneecap, a transcondylar fracture of the left hip, complicated by osteomyelitis, and a perforating firearm wound to the left foot, resulting in a splintered fracture of an instep bone and forming a defect of the bone.
17.  The applicant remained in the Gudermes hospital until August 2000. Subsequently she travelled to Rostov-on-Don for further medical treatment and in September to October 2001 she was treated in Moscow. The applicant continues to suffer from the consequences of her wounds and has difficulty walking. In July 2002 the applicant was recognised as having a third-degree disability. She submitted that the cost of carrying out the necessary operation was too high for her and that she could not pay for the insertion of an implant.
18.  The Government did not dispute the factual circumstances of this part of the complaint as presented by the applicant.
19.  On 4 March 2002 the applicant complained to the Grozny Town Prosecutor, described the attack on the civilian convoy on 23 January 2000 and her injuries and asked him to open a criminal investigation.
20.  On 14 and 20 May 2002 the applicant submitted additional complaints to the Grozny Town Prosecutor’s Office.
21.  On 26 June 2002 the Grozny Town Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal investigation file under Article 118, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Code (involuntary causing of bodily harm of medium gravity). The Leninskiy District Department of the Interior of Grozny (“the Leninskiy ROVD”) was put in charge of the investigation. On the same day the applicant was notified.
22.  On 28 June 2002 an investigator from the Leninskiy ROVD opened a preliminary investigation and assigned the case file no. 48089.
23.  In July and August 2002 the applicant and a number of witnesses were questioned. Two witnesses confirmed the applicant’s account of the events of January 2000. The investigation also questioned a number of local residents, servicemen from the Leninskiy ROVD and former members of the armed forces who had participated in combat in Grozny. However, none of these witnesses had any information about the episode complained of by the applicant. Furthermore, the investigation questioned medical personnel in the hospital in Argun where the applicant had been taken on 30 January 2000 (see documents in Part B below).
24.  In July 2002 a medical report confirmed that the injuries could have been received in the circumstances described by the applicant.
25.  On 3 August 2002 the applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings.
26.  On 6 August 2002 an investigator from the Leninskiy ROVD issued the applicant with a notice which stated: “On 23 January 2000, during the period of hostilities in Grozny, while using the humanitarian corridor provided by the federal armed forces, Mrs Lipatu Umayeva received firearm wounds, as a result of which she was admitted to hospital in Gudermes. ...”
27.  In August 2002 the Leninskiy ROVD and the military commander’s office of Grozny informed the investigation that it would be impossible to identify the relevant military units in view of the passage of time and because in January 2000 a large number of military units had participated in the operations in Grozny.
28.  The Government also stated that on 11 August 2002 the investigation had forwarded requests for information to the investigative departments of the Ministry of the Interior in the Moscow and Rostov regions. They did not indicate the nature of these requests or whether any answers had been received.
29.  On 24 August 2002 the charge against unknown persons was reformulated under Article 213, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Code (hooliganism involving the use of arms; on 27 January 2004 the same charge was brought under Article 213, paragraph 1, to comply with the new wording of that provision).
30.  On 26 August 2002 the investigation was adjourned for failure to identify the culprits. The applicant was informed of this but did not appeal against the decision.
31.  In September 2005 the present application was communicated to the Russian Government.
32.  On 29 December 2005 the investigation was resumed. According to the Government, the investigation requested information from the Ministry of Defence about the locations of military units in Chechnya at the relevant time. The Government also stated that five persons had been questioned as witnesses at that time, without indicating who they were and what they had stated. The Government did not submit any documents produced within this round of the investigation.
33.  On 3 February 2006 the investigation was adjourned and on 9 February 2006 it was resumed.
34.  On 9 March 2006 the investigation of the criminal case was again adjourned for failure to identify the culprits. The applicant was informed of this decision on 31 March 2006.
35.  It appears that the investigation was once again reopened and then adjourned on 4 January 2007, a fact of which the applicant was informed on 22 January 2008.
36.  The Government stated that the Prosecutor General’s Office was monitoring the progress of the investigation.
37.  In January 2006, in response to a request from the Court, the Government submitted about 120 pages of documents from the criminal investigation file concerning the attack against the applicant. The file contained no list of documents, some pages were not numbered and certain parts seemed to be missing. In consequence, the Court requested the Government to submit a list of the documents contained in the file. In March 2006 the Government replied, relying on information obtained from the Prosecutor General’s Office, that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings. At the same time, the Government suggested that a Court delegation could have access to the file at the place where the preliminary investigation was being conducted, with the exception of the documents disclosing military information and the witnesses’ personal data, and without the right to make copies of the case file and transmit it to others.
38.  On an unspecified date in 2002 the applicant lodged a civil suit with the Leninskiy District Court in Grozny. She sought compensation for the pecuniary damage caused by the destruction of her flat and belongings as a result of the rocket attack on 10 January 2000. She also sought compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the attack of 23 January 2000 and the injuries received, as a result of which she was obliged to undergo medical treatment and remained partially disabled. She claimed that she had spent 69,020 Russian roubles (RUB) and that she needed a further RUB 147,726. The applicant also sought RUB 10,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage. The applicant submitted that both attacks had been carried out by the Russian military forces and named the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Finance as co-defendants.
39.  On 18 October 2000 the Leninskiy District Court refused to consider the applicant’s claim for lack of jurisdiction. The court stated that the applicant should submit her claim at the location where the defendants were based, namely in a district court in Moscow.
40.  The applicant appealed against the above decision without giving any reasons, and on 26 November 2002 the Supreme Court of Chechnya confirmed the decision of 18 October 2002. The court stated that a claim against a legal entity should be brought at the location of that entity; accordingly, the applicant should bring her claim before a district court in Moscow. The court also referred to the amount of the applicant’s claim.
41.  The Government explained in their observations that Government Decree No. 404 of 4 July 2003 had been implemented in Chechnya. Accordingly, action was being taken to set up a compensation scheme for persons whose housing and property had been damaged. In December 2005 the commission in charge of payment of compensation placed the applicant’s claim on their agenda. No documents or further information were submitted by the parties on this matter.
42.  The applicant submitted a number of additional documents to substantiate her claims. They can be summarised as follows.
(a) Documents relating to the attack of 23 January 2000
43.  In October 2005 four persons produced written accounts of the events of 23 January 2000. They were Sulanbek U., the applicant’s brother, and three female neighbours, Roza D., Leyla M. and Tumisha N. They confirmed that on 10 January 2000 the applicant’s house had been hit by a rocket and destroyed. The residents of their part of Grozny had been hiding in cellars from heavy shelling. They testified that on 22 January 2000 they had been informed, by means of a helicopter using loudspeakers and flyers, that they could leave the city by road in the direction of Staraya Sunzha. On 23 January 2000 at about 9 a.m. several dozen persons took white cloths to demonstrate that they were civilians and walked towards Staraya Sunzha. The witnesses stated that the group had been on foot and many people had been carrying their belongings on sledges and in their hands. At some point there was a loud explosion and then the witnesses saw helicopters in the air. They took refuge in a nearby basement, where Sulanbek U. and his sister Maryam realised that their sister, the applicant, was not there. They could not leave the cellar until evening because of the continued shelling. In the evening, with assistance from other persons, Sulanbek U. and his sister retrieved the wounded applicant, took her to the basement and gave her first aid. On the following day they transported her to Staraya Sunzha, where there was a Red Cross field hospital. From there the applicant was taken to the Argun hospital, while the witnesses went to Ingushetia with buses from the Ministry of Emergencies (Emercom).
(b) Documents relating to the medical treatment of the applicant
44.  The applicant submitted a number of documents attesting to the seriousness of her injuries and the cost of treatment. The Gudermes district hospital confirmed that the applicant had remained there between 31 January and 1 August 2000 and that she had been required to buy various medicines and equipment, for a total cost of RUB 69,020.
45.  In November 2001 a Moscow-based medical centre produced an estimate of RUB 147,726 for inserting an implant.
46.  In April 2003 the same hospital produced another estimate, amounting to RUB 222,210, as an indication of the suggested treatment for the applicant.
47.  The Government submitted about 120 pages of documents from criminal investigation file no. 48089 concerning the applicant’s injuries. These can be summarised as follows.
(a) Decision to open a criminal investigation
48.  On 25 June 2002 the Grozny Town Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal investigation on the basis of a letter of 14 May 2002 from the applicant, in which she stated that she had been wounded by the military while trying to leave Grozny through a corridor for civilians on 23 January 2000. The investigation referred to Article 118, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Code (involuntary causing of bodily harm).
(b) Statements by the applicant and other eyewitnesses
49.  On 28 June 2002 the applicant was questioned about the circumstances of the attack and gave detailed submissions. She explained that on 22 January 2000 she had learnt from an announcement made through the amplifiers of a helicopter that on 23 January 2000 civilians would have a final chance to leave the city along the Staraya Sunzha road. She further stated that on the morning of 23 January 2000 she had walked along the indicated route, together with a large group of local residents. In Zhukovskogo Street they had been attacked by gunfire from the premises of the canning factory and from a helicopter. She had been wounded in both legs and the right hand, and had fainted. Later her sister and other people had taken her to a nearby cellar and then transported her to Staraya Sunzha, which they had reached on 28 January 2000. The applicant further explained how she had been treated for her wounds. She named two witnesses who could confirm her statements and explained that her sister was no longer alive.
50.  On 3 August 2002 the applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings.
51.  On 2 July 2002 the investigation questioned both witnesses indicated by the applicant, Tamara Kh. and Satsita N., who confirmed her statements.
(c) Description of the site
52.  On 5 July 2002 the investigation examined the site at Zhukovskogo Street where the attack had taken place. The investigators did not find anything noteworthy.
(d) Statements by local residents, medical staff and servicemen from the Leninskiy ROVD
53.  In July and August 2002 the investigation questioned sixteen residents of the area and servicemen from the Leninskiy ROVD, who had no information about the attack of 23 January 2000. Most of the witnesses were not in Grozny in January 2000 and could only confirm that in January 2000 there had been intense fighting between the army and the illegal insurgents.
54.  Medical staff of Argun Town Hospital No. 1 explained that at the relevant time the hospital had received many persons wounded in the hostilities. They could not recall the applicant’s case and indicated that records had not been kept properly, in view of the emergency situation.
55.  On 16 August 2002 the head of the Leninskiy ROVD informed the investigator in charge of the case that no other witnesses could be identified.
(e) Medical documents and forensic report
56.  On 24 July 2002 a medical expert, prepared on an order by the investigator, concluded that the applicant’s injuries could have been received within the time period and under the circumstances indicated by her. He evaluated the injuries as bodily harm of medium gravity.
(f) Attempts to identify military units
57.  In July 2002 the Leninskiy ROVD informed the investigator in charge of the case that it was impossible to identify which military units had been stationed in Zhukovskogo Street on 23 January 2000, in view of the passage of time and the fact that the military units which had participated in active combat with illegal armed groups in Grozny at that time had been redeployed. It would also be impossible to identify the exact provenance of the military helicopters referred to by the applicant.
58.  On 25 July 2002 the military commander of Grozny, citing the same reasons, informed the investigator in charge of the case that it would be impossible to identify the military units and helicopters concerned.
(g) Orders by prosecutors
59.  On 24 August 2002 the charge was reformulated under Article 213, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Code (hooliganism involving the use of arms).
60.  On 26 August 2002 the investigator in charge of the case adjourned the investigation for failure to identify the culprits. The applicant was informed of the adjournment.
61.  On 27 January 2004 the investigation was resumed for two days in order to bring charges under Article 213, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Code, in view of its new wording. On 29 January 2004 the investigation was adjourned for failure to identify the persons who had committed the crime. The applicant was informed accordingly.